If you read the Wiki it says that only lights of sufficient intensity are able to catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. It does not apply to all light. Otherwise everything would be enlarged. In the headlight highway example on that link the tail lights of the cars in the opposite lane are not being enlarged.
Were you able to measure the intensity of the lights in your photo on the wiki then? Or did you just cherry pick a photo? The headlight example doesn't show enlarged lights, it simply appears larger because there are more cars in that area of the photo. More cars = more headlights = brighter.
The "Great Lakes" are actually inland seas, and have waves and swells on them. The rest of those images are on the sea. This is what is causing the sinking effect in many of those images.
And do these waves and swells reach several tens or hundreds of feet at all time, without ever going down?
Perspective is bringing them the horizon to your eye level
They are not being brought to eye level, because the horizon is not at eye level.
A small object can obscure a large object, much like if you hold a dime out in front of you it can obscure an elephant.
Correct, but only if the small object is MUCH closer to you than the big object. How much closer are the waves to the observer than the ships?
The evidence is that if you start at sea level and slowly increase your altitude the horizon will rise with you.
But you're only claiming this. Do you have any real evidence? Did you use any sort of tools to determine this?
The fact that the horizon rises to stay at eye level, rather than lowers, as you increase altitude, is evidence that there is an effect going on which keeps the horizon at your eye level.
This would be true if you could provide evidence that it is rising to eye level.
At a very high altitude you are looking through so much atmosphere the horizon just seems to be faded with fog. At that point the lands may seem to drop as you go higher -- but that is because of atmosphere.
So does this cause the horizon's position relative to your eyes to become un-measurable? How could one counter this so that they could determine where the horizon actually is? If it is un-measurable, how then do you know that the horizon rises as you rise?
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day?
That's a very good question. ENAG is entirely claims, though. It's proponents made up by Rowbotham, no actual evidence. It's entirely hearsay.